Consumption, Markets and Culture - Essay Example

Intangible fashion is the ic post-modernist consumer practice, or as the multitudes assumes to be. In this research, it will be argued that on the contrary fashion should be interpreted as a way of expressing one’s dedication to modernist virtues. The framework of George Ritzer, which is famously known as The McDonaldization of Society, will be used as the primary approach to associate such virtues to institutionalised consumption behaviour, permitting one to hint to others. Modernist principles are not homogenous, and are in significant manners conflicting, giving impetus to the dynamics of fashion that can be perceived. Fashion, yet consumption in common, is, due to its relations with emotions, irrationality and ineffectiveness, rarely examined in the social sciences. Some regard fashion, clothes and other ways of adorning the body, as the classic post-modern tradition because it is extremely unpredictable. Others emphasise the production part of the story to elaborate the dynamics of this practice. This subject matter is also selected by economists investigating fashion. Even though this is undoubtedly an important point, it is not the overriding element. I. Theoretical Perspective So as to express one of the theoretical fundamentals of consumption, which is mass culturalism, it is important to make some comparisons between various kinds of mass culturalism. For several centuries, numerous thinkers have criticized mass culture and modernity too, for the threats it creates to great cultural values. From both sides of the narrative are basically the same, and ‘Americanization’ frequently functions the same purpose in both accounts. Theorists such as Nietzsche, Eliot, Leavis and other on the one side have proposed that the masses endanger to sink in the best that has been deliberated and said. For these thinkers, developed societies tend to even out the cultural differentiations, or more precisely hierarchies, that permit elite objects and traditions to emerge (Daunton & Hilton 2001). The mass suppresses individual intellect. A similar classification of arguments can be attributed to the other face of the account. Marcuse, Adorno, Haug and others make the declaration that mass culture to a certain extent brainwashes the average people into nothingness and corrupts the basis from which truly ingenious cultural tradition can emerge. These are commonly alternatives on a Marxist perspective and false consciousness premise, drastic cultural change is hampered by nourishing the people with bread and false hopes. Or, the mass represses change since the elite wants it to. Even if these criticisms are one and the same thing, the causes are taken into account to be fairly different (ibid). In the previous instance it is developed society, modernity itself, which is the dilemma, but for the revolutionary thinkers a specific alternative of modernity is to charge it to capitalism. And then, if these two accounts of mass culturalism are compared, it appears that particular arguments can be created about Ritzer’s assumptions. If mass culturalism will be interpreted into Ritzer’s terms, the McDonaldizing danger is one of homogenizing, the threat that everything turns out to be the same. If the other account of mass culturalism will be interpreted then the intentions of multinational capital are greatly served through McDonaldizing goods and services. Now it appears that both accounts could be true and they are by no means essentially unequal, but that Ritzer emphasizes more on the former account than the latter. Or, he is more at ease with cultural superiority than a political economy of capitalism. Moreover, an alternative perspective of McDonald’s is allocated no breathing space at all. Nevertheless, mainstream cultural frameworks are more probable to endeavour some anthropological consideration with the referred to masses who make use of McDonald’s. Contrary to the structural determinism of mass culturalism it could be maintained that it is impossible to suppose precisely what McDonald’s is and implies in particular locations and for particular population. It could be that any collection of objects and traditions that is international and intricate as this organization ought to have a quite more cautious and compassionate interpretation of Ritzer’s. Any investigation of consumption should certainly initiate with an understanding of the reality that, whatever else it could stand for to individuals in modern society, the consumption of mass-produced goods makes up an essential aspect of the current capitalist economy (Fine 2002). Consumption is the conclusive link in a sequence of economic movement in which capital is changed through a mechanism of material manufacturing into commodity capital. It is the transaction and consumption of goods which facilitates for the gain of profits, which if reverted to a form of money, can be put back for investment into further production and hence start the flow of capital again. This mechanism embodies the essential nature of capitalistic venture, and it is from this fundamental mechanism that an expansive social setting starts to assume on its distinguishing character (ibid). II. Fashion, Emotions, Irrationality, Ineffectiveness Fashion is not merely luxury fashion, but could be clothing and others used to cover and embellish one’s body. Crane (2000) has claimed that since the 1960s there has been a transition from one fashion, haute couture, to a more divided circumstance where one can differentiate luxury fashion, industrial fashion and street fashion. There is a mutual connection between luxury fashion and everyday fashion, a mutuality that is manifested in luxury fashion’s dynamics, as Simmel (1957) emphasised. The need to belong to a particular elite group, perhaps make-believe group, and at the same time the need to identify oneself from other, inferior groups is evident in fashion. The history of fashion, and also of music, demonstrates persistent shifting images of styles, stressing what is referred to as the various socio-cultural values in a unique manner. A highlight on functionality, free will, development and plainness in one style of clothing is trailed by one on speed, distinctiveness, light-heartedness and genuineness. Apart from the mainstreams that are present at any one moment in fashion, anti-fashions as well are present. Some styles show themselves as fashion, others not, or other display themselves as the contrary such as the Anti-Fashion from the seventies. As Crane (2000) maintained, the origins of fashion have branched out. Ireland (1987) demonstrates how frequently and to what degree recent fashions build on former ones at the micro level of foundations in design and design mechanism. Even modern designers of fashion use components from former fashions when inventing a new style, in reality referring to the same principles. The institutionalised communication regarding the recent designs, in the media and at times of fashion displays, refers to such principles as well. Hence, the indication of fashion consumers is more probably to be recognisable, though that referring to an avant-garde socio-cultural principle such as innovation and independence in an institutionalised way, they are in peril of indicating regarding themselves that they are against modernity, conventionalist. An unwarranted post-modernist combining of whatsoever a designer aspires is available is not what occurs. Certainly, new fashions emerge swiftly than ever before and the designs extract on a more expansive range of references, yet the ideals and principles yearned for have not altered (ibid). Fashion is on the pioneering aspect of presenting new concepts and replicating from the past, of originality and differentiation. Consumption of it is hence, unavoidably, a vigorous and innovative endeavour. The principles that the various styles of fashion long for are modernist. Simmel’s (1957) argument that the substance of fashion in abstract is insignificant leaves one, nevertheless, in a status where it is not possible to recognise the dynamics of consumption trends and so is ineffective. One would not take into account the socio-cultural principles essential to the issue of consumption, and their perhaps inconsistent character. One would therefore not examine that fashion and fashion discussions are an unbroken combination of contradicting principles and beliefs and misinterpret the phenomenon. Obedience to the very same socio-cultural principles as previously has led in the altered nature of fashion reform, becoming deeply intricate, and unpredictable. The various dynamics do not imply a stream of change, even if some argue that it does. Elizabeth Wilson (1985) in her volume Adorned in Dreams, Fashion and Modernity has put it therefore: “Changes in fashion styles not only represent reaction against what went before: they may be self-contradictory too” (p. 38). The inconsistencies of modernist consumption obvious for fashion also as in for instance pop music is because of the yearning for the socio-cultural principles of originality, freedom, modernism, swiftness, effectiveness, self-sufficiency, pleasure, and others that have to be transmitted in a manner that is recognisable to others. Appearance is, thus, a critical component. Within an interpretative society, a collectively mediated set of rules of understanding and aesthetic standards is required. The rules for understanding are shared by a society that establishes what could be referred to as ‘generalised other’ who is always depicted as a traditionalist who is greatly perceptive to the opinions of others (ibid). A genuine or imagined generalised other is the escape goat for accumulated tensions because of institutional pressures, or intrinsically contradicting modernist principles. Or, according to Wilson (1985) “despite its apparent irrationality, fashion cements social solidarity and imposes group norms, while deviations in dress are usually experience as shocking and disturbing” (p. 6). Therefore, susceptibility and anxiety are important determinants for consumers. The dynamics of the trend of fashion, the essential limitedness of every fashion, is to be interpreted in those terms. Fashions that can be examined hence do not comprise or manifest a deviation from modernism. Undoubtedly, they are an obvious expression of it. Fashion, occasionally called post-modern fashion is, with this regard, not dissimilar from the new look of merely change World War II or Anti-Fashion of the seventies (Crane 2000). Various principles could be highlighted, but they are all strictly modernist principles. A momentary look at an arbitrary promotion for a brand of fashion, generated and advertised by one of the top companies in the luxury industry establishes the point. Other promotions are alike in the sense that they yearn for modernist principles, although not essentially the ones referred to in this promotion. Principles that are referred to are those of free will, running away from conventions, autonomy, effectiveness and other similar concepts. Which principles are emphasised and to what degree, differs. Obviously, the manner in which such principles are conveyed varies too (ibid). Certainly, the promotions want to encourage the viewer of the particular relation between principles and a form of outlook on the side of the spectator. Purchasing, using and wearing luxury fashion brands is hence a means of indicating particular socio-cultural principles, although the products provided by these luxury fashion brands might not be the generally famous and upmarket. These are modernist principles, and consumers convey them in habitual or traditional ways so that the message transmitted can be understood by others. It is, obviously, in some aspect a company’s marketing attempt to try to build the relationship between the modernist principles and specific products that are included. Marketing attempts that intellectuals, who emphasis the post-modernist character of consumption, point to certainly function a purpose. But this does not prevent the argument that, however, the principles involved are modernist, and the message has to be widely understood also to individuals who are not profoundly involved in the specific fashion. These two requirements for fashions are inconsistently also the bases for the weakening of each specific fashion. As more individuals begin to choose on a fashion, the core reason for its presence and appeal breaks a promise (Fine 2002). The premise regarding fashion is, obviously, to differentiate one’s self in following it from others, to demonstrate that one is an independent person and so on. The pursuit for new fashion in then also fragments of the observable facts of fashions. Attempting to design a fashion is, then, attempting to walk a thin rope; extreme modernism will lead to consumption good which transmits a message that is incapable of being understood, as too much sameness implies not indicating the appropriate, modernist principles (ibid). Fashion, hence, is not the classic post-modern type of consumption, but a comprehensively modernist one creating undoubtedly clear the pressures that modernity is filled with. Friedman (1990) claims that consumption particularly is the component of selfhood, of social identity; it identifies identity, the character of power, sickness and health. In consuming, people indicate to others, but consumption is not merely instrumental movement. The concept that consuming is only instrumental is not an extraordinary position. Goods are, nevertheless, also consumed for what they embody regardless of what impacts consuming them offer; according to Friedman (1994), “consumption is a material realization, or attempted realization, of the image of the good life” (p. 169). The influence of George Ritzer’s The McDonaldization of Society makes up in its insistent demonstration of concrete instances from practically every dimension of social life such as career and fashion, education and health care, culture and economy, mass media and politics. It is difficult to think of a finer cultural model to play up Weber’s argument than McDonald’s, the universal symbol of a consumer philosophy whose world is shaped from cars, television commercials and fast foods. Ritzer refers to McDonaldization so as to portray how profound the instrumental relevance of effectiveness, measurability, preventability and regulation are grounded in the life world. Apparently, citizens of the North Atlantic cultures inhabit in a McDonaldized society (Ritzer 2008). However, Ritzer’s examination would have been more effective if he had endeavoured beyond the explanation of what he has referred to as the McDonaldization of society. Ritzer’s primary problem is his shortcoming to go further from Weber; he necessitated to do an analysis of ideology that needs elaborating the function of language and culture as primary drivers that support McDonaldization. As perceived by Orniston and Sassower, “language is understood in a more productive of performative sense: language creates the conditions, that is to say the labyrinth of fictions, that make its performance possible; it creates the culture in which it is performed” (Jackson et al. 2000, 63). Therefore, the argument should be this: since language is never unbiased because it carries out the function of confirming or negating present social structures, emphasizing on the discursive character of language is essential; thereby would stress for individuals the sense wherein language generates and replicates meanings that are at the heart of people’s everyday awareness; such ideas would shed light on the sense in which individuals are alienated by McDonaldization (ibid). Since he does not categorize language to be at the heart of his social investigation, Ritzer not merely fails to express the linguistic sources of rationality, yet he continues somewhat descriptive of the manner things are. Ritzer has to cater to the ideological character of rationality so as to elaborate how and why rational mechanisms turn out to be the opposite. Or, to address the discursive character of rational mechanisms such as McDonaldization, he had to consider culture and the drivers of social change; particularly, it is important to examine the sense in which the scientific frame of mind, as an attribute of language, changes people’s temporal and spatial sense, in so doing altering people’s expectations. Apparently, individuals engage in conflicting acts; on another instance people have come to crave for goods and services in an immediate manner, with science as the sponsor of infinite probabilities, people approve of the reality that the sky is the limit. Yet, on the other hand, these individuals are the same people who, in response to depressing features of rationality, denounce the core science-anchored processes of supplying goods and services. This is the instance that Ritzer does not examine adequately, an assessment of reason that would necessitate understanding of the symbolic character of reason (Daunton & Hilton 2001). To understand the symbolic character of reason necessitates a communication point of view. A communication framework, in the analysis of Ritzer’s McDonaldization, facilitates individuals to analyze motivation in people in addition to the principle of McDonaldization, validation of technologies, and other human processes. In relating a communication standpoint, McDonaldization seems a universal phenomenon resembling science and technology that are widespread in modern culture. Culture, in this point, is framed as ideology. In applying a communication point of view, McDonaldization assumes an ideological emphasis, a model of a leading human culture (ibid). Culture is equally appreciated as an ideology; it relates with influence and supremacy. What occurs, nevertheless, in a social dimension where the markers inherent to these symbolic interactions take place, the message of social discourse, are down poured with monetary value? Under such circumstances, the symbolic forms wherein cultural relevance is usually accumulated are themselves diminished and social indications lose their capability to rouse or express an aimed social meaning. Value cannot be appended to capital, cultural gains are disregarded and excess meaning falls short to emerge as symbolic markets are undervalued (Jackson et al. 2000). Under such instances does culture itself mislay its relevance? Current assumptions of postmodernism and post modernity, which are excellent subject matter to be investigated in the discipline of consumption, would appear to imply the presence of just such a condition of market crisis. III. Conclusion Without recognising the form a particular consumption trend assumes, one will be incapable of understanding the dynamics of consumption trends. There is, hence, a necessity to be aware of and examine the socio-cultural principles of goods that are consumed, are filled with. In everyday life, people acknowledge that socio-cultural principles play a crucial function in economic mechanism, but, with a number of exclusions, economists do not acknowledge this. One of the several schools of thought in economics that carries fundamental socio cultural principles into consideration is that of conventional economics. Numerous have contributed to the assumption of traditional change, even though not all of these would recognise the function socio cultural fulfil. Therefore, two arguments can be put forth. Primarily, a form of consumption which is regarded to specifically signify post-modernity is certainly thoroughly modernist. Secondly, examining such a phenomenon through observing how the socio-cultural principles are traditionalised to determine attitude and behaviour provides an apparent and encouraging theoretical framework to attempt to understand even divided and inconsistent consumption incidences such as that of fashion. References Belk, Russel. Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd., 2006. Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books, 1990. Crane, D. Fashion and its Social Agendas, London & Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000. Daunton, Martin & Hilton, Matthew. The Politics of Consumption: Material Culture and Citizenship in Europe and America. Oxford, England: Berg, 2001. Fine, Ben. The World of Consumption: The Material and Cultural Revisited. London: Routledge, 2002. Friedman, J. "Being in the World," Theory, Culture and Society 7: 311-328, 1990. Ireland, P.J. Encyclopedia of Fashion Details, London: B.T. Batsford, 1987. Jackson, Peter et al. Commercial Cultures: Economies, Practices, Spaces. Oxford, England: Berg, 2000. Keat, Russel et al. The Authority of the Consumer. New York: Routledge, 1994. Lee, Martyn J. Consumer Culture Reborn: The Cultural Politics of Consumption. New York: Routledge, 1993. Ritzer, George. The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, 2008. Simmel, G. “Fashion" The American Journal of Sociology 62(6): 541-558, 1957. First published 1904. Wilson, E. Adorned in Dreams--Fashion and Modernity, London: Virago, 1985. Read More